This article was downloaded by: [Syracuse University Library]

On: 18 June 2013, At: 11:19

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition:

A Journal on Normal and Dysfunctional
Development
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nanc20

Aging and Response Inhibition:

Normative Data for the Victoria Stroop
Test
a a b
Angela K. Troyer , Larry Leach & Esther Strauss
a
Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care
b
University of Victoria
Published online: 16 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Angela K. Troyer , Larry Leach & Esther Strauss (2006): Aging and Response
Inhibition: Normative Data for the Victoria Stroop Test, Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition: A
Journal on Normal and Dysfunctional Development, 13:1, 20-35

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/138255890968187

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 13:20–35, 2006
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1382-5585/05 print; 1744-4128 online
DOI: 10.1080/138255890968187

Aging and Response Inhibition:

1744-4128
1382-5585
NANC
Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition,
Cognition Vol. 13, No. 01, December 2005: pp. 0–0

Normative Data for the Victoria

Stroop Test
Aging and
Angela K. Troyer
Response
et al.
Inhibition

ANGELA K. TROYER1, LARRY LEACH1 AND ESTHER STRAUSS2

Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 11:19 18 June 2013

1
Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care and 2University of Victoria

ABSTRACT
Increased difficulty with response inhibition occurs with age, although there is some
controversy as to whether increased interference on Stroop tasks reflects difficulties
with response inhibition or simply reflects generalized cognitive slowing. The Victoria
Stroop Test (VST) is a brief, easily administered, psychometrically sound version of
Stroop’s original task. Performance on the VST by adults across a wide age span was
examined to determine the association between age and various measures of interfer-
ence. In addition, normative data for the VST were calculated. Participants were 272
healthy, community-dwelling adults age 18 to 94. Age and speed were negatively cor-
related on all trials of the VST. Importantly, however, interference scores that were
corrected for baseline slowing remained highly correlated with age. Similarly, age and
error scores on the interference trial were positively correlated, indicating decreased
accuracy with age. These findings suggest that increased interference on Stroop tasks
with age is not accounted for by simple cognitive slowing and more likely reflects
other cognitive changes, such as decreased response inhibition. The VST has a number
of administrative and psychometric strengths, and the provision of normative data
should enhance its potential for clinical and research applications.

In the normal aging population, there is evidence of increased difficulty with

response inhibition. For example, a tendency toward off-target verbosity
during conversation increases with age, and this is thought to be related to a
decreased ability to inhibit irrelevant thoughts (Arbuckle & Pushkar Gold,
1993). Older adults are also slower and make more errors when asked to
complete sentences by providing a word that is completely unrelated to the
sentence (Burgess & Shalice, 1997). Clinically, inhibition is often assessed
using a standardized version of the color-naming task initially developed by

Address correspondence to: Angela Troyer, Psychology Department, Baycrest Centre for Geriatric
Care, 3560 Bathurst Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M6A 2E1. E-mail: atroyer@baycrest.org

20
 AGING AND RESPONSE INHIBITION 21

Stroop in 1935. There are a number of versions of the Stroop task, and each
involves: (a) a control task that requires the individual to name the colors of
nonword stimuli such as dots or strings of Xs; and (b) an interference task
that requires the individual to name the colors of color names that are printed
in contrasting colors (e.g., red is written in blue ink). This latter task, thus,
requires the individual to inhibit an automatic reading response and to
produce a more effortful color-naming response. The interference effect is
determined by calculating the extra time required to name colors in the
interference task in comparison to the time required to name colors in the
control task.
Studies of aging and inhibition using the Stroop task have been some-
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 11:19 18 June 2013

what contradictory. Because cognitive slowing is one of the most robust

findings in the cognitive aging literature (e.g., Salthouse, 1985), it is impor-
tant to take generalized slowing into account when interpreting interference
effects. Thus, the Stroop variables of prime interest in the aging population
include interference scores that take into consideration generalized slowing
(i.e., a comparison of scores during the interference and baseline conditions)
and error scores. Regarding interference scores, some studies have shown a
positive relation with age (e.g., Delis et al., 2001; Ivnik et al., 1996; Klein
et al., 1997), whereas other studies, including a meta-analysis, have shown
no relation with age (e.g., Graf et al., 1995; Verhaeghen & De Meersman,
1998). There are different ways to calculate interference scores, and this may
affect the age differences obtained. It has been argued that interference
scores based on the difference between the baseline and interference con-
dition are not independent of general slowing, and scores based on the
ratio between these conditions are better in this regard (Verhaeghen &
De Meersman, 1998). Error rates are not often reported in studies of aging,
but there is some evidence that older adults make more errors than younger
adults on the Stroop interference trial (Delis et al., 2001; West, 1999;
Whelihan & Lesher, 1985).
Theoretically, one would expect increased difficulty on Stroop vari-
ables with normal aging because age-related brain changes predominate in
the frontal lobes (e.g., Raz, 2000), and because there is evidence that the
frontal lobes are particularly involved in response inhibition on Stroop tasks.
Neuroimaging studies have shown that the most consistent regions of activa-
tion during performance of the Stroop interference task are left inferior frontal
regions (reviewed in Brown et al., 1999; Mead et al., 2002). Consistent with
these findings, patients with focal frontal lesions tend to show greater-than-
normal levels of interference on Stroop tasks (e.g., Perret, 1974; Regard,
1981; Spreen & Strauss, 1998; Stuss et al., 2001; Vendrell et al., 1995).
Involvement of the frontal lobes need not be focal; increased Stroop
interference also results from generalized brain damage associated with
traumatic brain injury (e.g., Trenerry et al., 1989; Vakil et al., 1995) and
 22 ANGELA K. TROYER ET AL.

dementia (e.g., Bondi et al., 2002; Nathan et al., 2001; Spieler et al., 1996).
In contrast, there is evidence that patients with nonfrontal focal lesions show
normal interference (Stuss et al., 2001).
Demographic variables other than age have less of an association with
Stroop performance. Previous studies have shown that sex is not consistently
related to Stroop interference scores (Ivnik et al., 1996; Moering et al., 2004;
Trenerry et al., 1989). Education tends to show a modest relation (r < .30)
with Stroop interference scores (Anstey et al., 2000; Ivnik et al., 1996),
although Moering and colleagues found a somewhat larger effect of educa-
tion on Stroop interference (accounting for 9 to 26% of the variance) in a
sample of African Americans.
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 11:19 18 June 2013

There are currently several standardized Stroop tests commercially avail-

able for clinicians, including Golden’s Stroop test (1978), the Stroop Neurop-
sychological Screening Test (Trenerry et al., 1989), and the Color-Word
Interference Test from the Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System (Delis
et al., 2001). Each of these versions of the Stroop test contain some type of
control task and an interference task, but they differ in the inclusion of addi-
tional control and/or practice tasks, in the number of items on each task, and in
the type and extent of the normative data available. Only one of these stan-
dardized Stroop tests provides normative data for errors scores (Delis et al.,
2001). Not all versions correct for generalized slowing on the interference
trial (Trenerry et al., 1989) or provide detailed age-corrected normative data
(Trenerry et al., 1989). One method of calculating an interference score (sub-
tracting a scaled score for time to complete a baseline task from a scaled score
for time to complete an interference task (Delis et al., 2001)) may not be a suffi-
cient correction in the case of extreme slowing, because scores cannot drop
below a scaled score of 1. (For example, performance 3 standard deviations
below the mean on the baseline task and 10 standard deviations below the mean
on the interference task would both result in scaled scores of 1. When subtracted,
this interference score would be normal, despite the actual difference in perfor-
mance on the two tasks.) All three of these standardized Stroop tests use a large
number of items (i.e., 60 to 112) on each task. However, there is evidence that
shorter test durations may be preferable for identifying individuals who have
difficulty with this task. Klein and colleagues (1997) found that on a 100-item
version of the Stroop task, older adults showed greater interference than younger
adults; importantly, this effect was more pronounced on the first 40 items than
on the last 60 items. This pattern was interpreted as reflecting the greater novelty
of the task on the initial items, thus requiring more effortful processing. With
increased exposure to the stimuli, the task may become more automatic and thus
less sensitive to difficulties with response inhibition.
The Victoria Stroop Test (VST) (Spreen & Strauss, 1998) was devel-
oped as a brief version of the Stroop task. It differs in several important ways
from the other standardized Stroop tasks. First, the VST contains only 24
 AGING AND RESPONSE INHIBITION 23

items on each of three tasks (naming the color of dots, of neutral words, and
of color words printed in contrasting colors). Thus, not only does it require
less administration time, but it may be ideal for detecting difficulties with
response inhibition because the examinee does not get extended practice
with the task. Second, the VST includes an additional training task (i.e.,
naming the colors of neutral words) that helps examinees establish the
appropriate response set (i.e., color naming) without exposure to the interfer-
ence condition (although it has been argued that presenting a color naming
trial decreases the interference effect on the subsequent trial—i.e., the
Comalli-Kaplan version in Mitrushina et al. (1999)). Third, scores that are
relatively independent of cognitive speed can be calculated, including an
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 11:19 18 June 2013

error score and an interference score (calculated as a ratio) that corrects for
generalized slowing. Similar to the other versions of the Stroop test, the VST
materials are easy to obtain. The VST is in the public domain, and users may
make their own stimuli (as described in Spreen & Strauss (1998)) or pur-
chase them from the University of Victoria. In addition, adequate psycho-
metric data, including reliability and validity, have been obtained for the
VST (reviewed in Spreen & Strauss (1998)).
The purpose of this article is twofold: (a) Because the literature about
the effect of age on Stroop measures of response inhibition is contradictory,
we examined the association between age and various performance mea-
sures on the VST. Of greatest interest were examinations of time and error
measures in the baseline condition (i.e., Dot task) and interference condition
(i.e., Color Word task) across age. We calculated ratio time scores based on
baseline and interference conditions to compare across age. (b) The clinical
use of the VST to date has been hampered by a lack of normative data on a
large number of healthy controls. In this article, we provide normative data
for adults between the ages of 18 and 94.

METHODS
Participants
Participants were 272 healthy, community-dwelling adults living in
Victoria, British Columbia or Toronto, Ontario. They were recruited from a
university-based, older-adult subject pool, senior centers, and advertise-
ments posted in the community and at the university. Participants were inter-
viewed to screen for neurological disorders (e.g., loss of consciousness
exceeding 1 hour, stroke, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis) and psychiatric disor-
ders (e.g., depression or anxiety requiring hospitalization) that could affect
cognitive functioning; interviews were conducted by graduate students
trained by a registered psychologist. Demographic information, including
age, level of education, and sex, is provided in Table 1. Erroneously,
 Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 11:19 18 June 2013

TABLE 1. Demographic Information, By Age Group

Age Group 18–39 30–49 40–59 50–64 60–69 65–74 70–79 75–84 80–94

n* 64 42 54 62 55 60 61 53 38
Age 26.8 (6.0) 38.5 (6.5) 51.3 (5.4) 57.6 (4.5) 64.6 (3.0) 69.6 (2.9) 74.5 (3.0) 79.1 (2.7) 84.3 (3.8)
Education n/a n/a 13.2 (3.0) 13.2 (2.4) 13.6 (2.5) 13.6 (2.9) 12.9 (2.8) 12.1 (2.7) 11.5 (3.1)

24
% Female 55 60 63 73 78 62 61 68 61
Note. Standard deviations are shown in parentheses. Education information was not recorded for the youngest age groups.
*Overlapping age groups were used.
Total n = 272.
 AGING AND RESPONSE INHIBITION 25

education was not recorded for the youngest participants. Testing was
conducted in English, and all subjects were fully fluent in English.
Victoria Stroop Test
The Victoria Stroop Test is described in detail by Spreen and Strauss
(1998). Briefly, the stimuli include three cards, each of which contains six
rows of four items. Within each row, one item is presented in each of the
following colors: red, blue, yellow, and green. On each of the three tasks,
participants are asked to scan the items across rows from left to right and to
name the color of each item as quickly and accurately as possible. On the
first task, the Dot task, items are colored dots. On the second task, the
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 11:19 18 June 2013

Neutral Word task, the items are common words (i.e., when, hard, and, over)
printed in color. On the third and final task, the Color Word task, the items
are color names (i.e., red, blue, yellow, green) printed in colors not corre-
sponding to the words themselves.
Standard administration of the VST (Spreen & Strauss, 1998) requires
the examiner to interrupt the examinee as soon as an error is made, after
which the examinee must correct the error and continue with the next item.
Mistakes spontaneously corrected by the individual before being interrupted
by the examiner are not counted as errors. The examiner records the amount
of time required to complete each task (to the nearest full second) and the
number of errors that are not spontaneously corrected.
Data Analyses
To address the first purpose of this article (i.e., examining interference
effects with age), correlations between age and several Stroop variables
were performed. Because many of the Stroop variables were skewed, we cal-
culated log transformation of the scores then performed correlations with
transformed rather than raw Stroop scores. Individually calculated ratio
interference time scores (i.e., time to complete the Color Word task ÷ time to
complete the Dot task) were also calculated, and correlations between age
and these ratio interference scores were computed. To address the second
purpose of this article (i.e., providing normative data), correlations with
demographic variables were performed to determine appropriate sample
groups, and normative data were calculated within those groups.

RESULTS
Data Transformations
Many of the distributions of Stroop scores were significantly and posi-
tively skewed, with skewness values ranging from 1.5 for time to complete
the Dot task to 4.5 for number of errors on the Neutral Word task. For the
 26 ANGELA K. TROYER ET AL.

time and interference scores, logarithmic transformations were performed

using log10X; because some error scores were 0, transformations using
log10(X + 1) were used for these scores (as recommended by Tabachnick &
Fidell, 1983). For most of these transformed scores, skewness values fell
within the acceptable range (i.e., less than 1.0). The exceptions were errors
on the Dot and Neutral Word task, for which skewness values still exceeded
3.0. Errors were very rare on these two tasks, with 93% of participants
making no errors on the Dot task, and 90% of participants making no errors
on the Neutral Word task. Because of the restricted range and resulting
skewed distribution, no further analyses were performed with error scores on
these two tasks.
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 11:19 18 June 2013

All correlations reported subsequently were performed using trans-

formed scores. Normative data, on the other hand, are reported using raw,
untransformed scores.
Correlations with Age
Pearson correlations between age and transformed Stroop variables
were performed with the entire sample and the effect sizes were examined
(with r’s of .10, .30, and .50 defined as small, medium, and large effect
sizes, respectively) (Cohen & Cohen, 1975). The correlations between age
and the time required to complete the Dot, Neutral Word, and Color Word
tasks were positive, medium-to-large in size, and statistically significant,
r(272) = .44, .58, and .62, respectively, all p’s < .001. The correlation
between age and errors on the Color Word task was positive, small in size,
and statistically significant, r(272) = .17, p = .006.
The correlation between age and the ratio interference score was posi-
tive, medium in size, and significant, r(272) = .41, p < .001. The interference
score was not related to time on the Dot task; the correlation between these
scores was negative, showed a negligible effect size, and was not significant,
r(272) = −.10, p = .088.
Correlation with Other Demographic Factors
To determine the association between transformed Stroop variables
and level of education, Pearson correlations were performed and the effect
sizes were examined in a manner similar to analyses regarding age. Educa-
tion had a small association with Stroop variables. All correlations between
education and Stroop variables were negative and small or negligible, with
r’s ranging from −.14 to −.24.
To determine the relation between transformed Stroop variables and sex,
t tests were performed and d was calculated as a measure of effect size (with
d’s of 0.20, 0.50, and 0.80 defined as small, medium, and large effect sizes,
respectively) (Cohen, 1988). Sex had no notable association with any Stroop
variable. The group differences between male and female participants were
 AGING AND RESPONSE INHIBITION 27

not statistically significant for any of the Stroop variables. All effect sizes
were negligible, with d’s less than 0.20.
Determination of Age Groups
Given that education and sex did not show sizable associations with
Stroop variables, normative data were tabulated according to age alone. An
examination of scatter plots depicting the relation between age and the seven
Stroop variables suggested a slower rate of change among the younger ages
than the older ages. Consequently, to maximize the number of participants in
each group, approximately 20-year age ranges were used for normative data
up to age 59, and approximately 10-year age ranges were used for normative
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 11:19 18 June 2013

data for age 60 and older, resulting in five age groups.

Calculation of Normative Data
Because Stroop variables were skewed, percentile scores derived from
the means and standard deviations would not accurately reflect the actual
distributions, and we instead derived scaled scores and percentiles based on
the obtained score distributions. In other words, the theoretical percentiles
associated with scaled scores from 2 to 18 were determined. Then, based on
the actual percentiles, raw scores corresponding to each scaled score were
determined. These data are presented in Tables 2 to 6. Because error rates
were extremely low on the Dot and Neutral Word tasks, normative data are
not provided.

DISCUSSION
We obtained evidence for increased interference with age among healthy
adults on the Victoria Stroop Test. This interference effect is not accounted
for by the generalized slowing known to occur with age, that is: (a) individu-
ally calculated interference ratio scores (i.e., Color Word time ÷ Dot time)
were positively correlated with age but not correlated with baseline speed
(i.e., Dot time); and (b) error scores in the interference condition increased
with age. In general, the lower correlation between age and error scores (in
comparison to age and time scores) may reflect the restricted range due to an
overall low number of errors.
The nature of the relationship between age and interference on the
Stroop task, therefore, appears to involve slowed response rates and
increased errors. It is not possible to determine the extent to which speed
versus accuracy independently account for age-related changes because, on
the VST, the two scores are related. That is, the occurrence of errors
increases the time score obtained because participants are required to correct
mistakes as they are made. Regardless of whether decreased speed or
decreased accuracy is the prime contributor, it is apparent that a significant
 Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 11:19 18 June 2013

TABLE 2. Scaled Score Equivalents for Dot Time Scores (in Seconds), by Age Group

Age 18–39 (29) 30–49 (40) 40–59 (50) 50–64 (57) 60–69 (65) 65–74 (70) 70–79 (75) 75–84 (80) 80–94 (87)

Mean 11.0 11.1 12.3 12.0 12.1 13.3 14.2 15.1 15.1
SD 2.5 1.9 2.4 2.3 2.3 3.6 3.9 3.8 3.8

SS
17 <7 <8 <9 <9 <9 <9
16 7 <8 <8 <8 8 9 9 9 9
15 8 8 8 8 9 10 10 10 10
14 9 9 10 11 11
13 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12
12 10 11 12 13 13

28
11 10 11 11 12 13 14 14
10 11 12 12 12 13 14 15 15–16
9 11 12 13 13 13 14 15 16 17
8 12 13 14 14 14 15 16–17 17 18–19
7 13 14 15 15 15 16–17 18–19 18–20 20–21
6 14–15 15–16 16 16 16–17 18–20 20–21 21–22 22–23
5 16–17 17 17 17 18–19 21–27 22–27 23–27 24–29
4 18 18 18 18 20 28–29 28–29 28–29 > 29
3 19 19 19 19 21 30 > 29 > 29
2 > 19 > 19 > 19 > 19 > 21 > 30
Note. Midpoint ages are shown in parentheses.
 Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 11:19 18 June 2013

TABLE 3. Scaled Score Equivalents for Neutral Word Time Scores (in Seconds), By Age Group

Age 18–39 (29) 30–49 (40) 40–59 (50) 50–64 (57) 60–69 (65) 65–74 (70) 70–79 (75) 75–84 (80) 80–94 (87)

Mean 13.0 13.9 15.2 15.4 15.9 16.9 18.6 20.7 22.1
SD 2.9 2.6 2.9 3.2 5.1 5.1 5.4 6.7 6.0

SS
17 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 11 < 11
16 <9 < 10 10 10 10 11 11–12 < 14 < 14
15 9 10 11 11 11 12 13 14 14
14 10 11 12 12 13 14 15 15
13 11 12 13 13 15 16 16
12 12 13 14 16 17 17–18

29
11 12 13 14 14 14 15 17 18 19–20
10 13 14 15 15 15 16 18 19 21–22
9 14 15 16 16 16 17 19 20–22 23–24
8 15 16 17 17 17 18–19 20–21 23–25 25–26
7 16–17 17 18 18 18 20–21 22–23 26–29 27–29
6 18–19 18–19 19 19–20 19–24 22–24 24–29 30–33 30–33
5 20 20 20 21–26 25–41 25–41 30–41 34–45 34–45
4 21 21 21–24 27–28 42–45 42–45 42–46 > 45 > 45
3 22 > 21 > 24 > 28 > 45 > 45 > 46
2 > 22
Note. Midpoint ages are shown in parentheses.
 Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 11:19 18 June 2013

TABLE 4. Scaled Score Equivalents for Color Word Time Scores (in Seconds), by Age Group

Age 18–39 (29) 30–49 (40) 40–59 (50) 50–64 (57) 60–69 (65) 65–74 (70) 70–79 (75) 75–84 (80) 80–94 (87)

Mean 22.1 25.7 27.8 28.5 29.4 32.6 37.1 43.3 50.4
SD 7.2 9.0 8.2 9.5 9.0 9.6 11.9 17.7 23.9

SS
17 < 11 < 15 < 15 < 15 < 15 < 19 < 19 < 22 < 22
16 11 15 15–17 15–17 15–17 19–20 19–21 22 22–25
15 12–13 16 18 18 18–19 21 22–23 23–24 26–28
14 14–15 17 19 19 20 22 24 25–26 29–30
13 16 18 20–21 20–21 21–22 23–25 25–28 27–29 31–32
12 17–18 19–20 22–23 22–23 23–24 26–28 29–31 30–32 33–36

30
11 19 21–22 24–25 24–25 25–26 29–31 32–34 33–36 37–44
10 20–22 23–24 26–27 26–28 27–29 32–33 35–39 37–44 45–53
9 23–24 25–28 28–30 29–30 30–33 34–36 40–42 45–52 54–59
8 25–28 29–33 31–34 31–37 34–37 37–41 43–47 53–63 60–68
7 29–30 34–38 35–39 38–42 38–42 42–44 48–55 64–66 69–83
6 31–35 39–48 40–48 43–51 43–56 45–57 56–65 67–74 84–112
5 36–48 49–50 49–51 52–57 57–58 58–68 66–69 75–109 113–137
4 > 48 > 50 > 51 58–59 > 58 69–70 70–71 110–112 > 137
3 > 59 > 70 > 71 > 112
2
Note. Midpoint ages are shown in parentheses.
 Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 11:19 18 June 2013

TABLE 5. Scaled Score Equivalents for Interference Scores, By Age Group

Age 18–39 (29) 30–49 (40) 40–59 (50) 50–64 (57) 60–69 (65) 65–74 (70) 70–79 (75) 75–84 (80) 80–94 (87)

Mean 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.2
SD 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.6

SS
18 < 1.2 < 1.2 < 1.5
17 < 1.1 < 1.2 < 1.2 < 1.3 < 1.4 1.2–1.3 1.2–1.3 1.5
16 < 1.1 1.1–1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3–1.4 1.4 1.4–1.5 1.4–1.5 1.6–1.7
15 1.1–1.2 1.3 1.3–1.4 1.3–1.4 1.5–1.6 1.5–1.6 1.6 1.6–1.8 1.8
14 1.3 1.4–1.5 1.5 1.5–1.6 1.7–1.8 1.7–1.8 1.7–1.9 1.9–2.0 1.9–2.0
13 1.4–1.5 1.6–1.7 1.6–1.7 1.7–1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.1–2.2

31
12 1.6–1.7 1.8–1.9 1.8–1.9 1.9–2.0 2.0 2.0–2.1 2.1 2.2 2.3
11 1.8–1.9 2.0–2.1 2.0–2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2–2.4 2.3–2.4 2.4–2.7
10 2.0–2.1 2.2–2.3 2.2–2.4 2.2–2.4 2.2–2.4 2.3–2.5 2.5–2.6 2.5–2.8 2.8–3.4
9 2.2–2.3 2.4–2.5 2.5–2.6 2.5–2.7 2.5–2.7 2.6–2.8 2.7–3.0 2.9–3.3 3.5–3.6
8 2.4–2.5 2.6–2.8 2.7–2.8 2.8–3.2 2.8–3.2 2.9–3.2 3.1–3.5 3.4–3.9 3.7–3.9
7 2.6–2.8 2.9–3.7 2.9–3.7 3.3–3.7 3.3–3.7 3.3–4.0 3.6–4.1 4.0–5.0 4.0–5.1
6 2.9–3.5 3.8–3.9 3.8–3.9 3.8–4.0 3.8–4.1 4.1–5.0 4.2–5.0 5.1–5.5 5.2–5.5
5 3.6–4.0 4.0–4.5 4.0–4.5 4.1–4.7 4.2–4.7 5.1–6.0 5.1–6.0 5.6–6.1 5.6–10.0
4 4.1–4.2 4.6 4.6 4.8–4.9 4.8–4.9 6.1–6.3 6.1–6.4 6.2–6.5 > 10.0
3 > 4.2 > 4.6 > 4.6 > 4.9 > 4.9 > 6.3 > 6.4 > 6.5
2
Note. Midpoint ages are shown in parentheses. Interference scores were calculated as the number of seconds required to complete the Color Word task divided by the num-
ber of seconds required to complete the Dot task.
 Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 11:19 18 June 2013

TABLE 6. Means and Cumulative Percentages Associated with Raw Error Scores on Color Word Task, By Age Group

Age 18–39 (29) 30–49 (40) 40–59 (50) 50–64 (57) 60–69 (65) 65–74 (70) 70–79 (75) 75–84 (80) 80–94 (87)

Mean 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 1.1 1.7 2.1
SD 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.6 1.8 2.0

Errors
0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
1 47 50 43 35 27 33 47 64 79

32
2 19 24 22 19 14 17 29 45 50
3 9 9 4 5 4 5 18 28 32
4 3 2 3 2 2 6 11 16
5 2 5 8 10
6 2 3 6 8
7 2 2 4 8
8 3
Note. Midpoint ages are shown in parentheses.
 AGING AND RESPONSE INHIBITION 33

interference effect is present. This interference may reflect difficulties in a

number of areas: (a) a decreased ability to disengage from the dominant
reading response, (b) an increased tendency to respond impulsively, and/or
(c) a failure to maintain the task goal of ignoring the word dimension (Kane &
Engle, 2003).
Our findings with the VST of increased interference with age are
consistent with several other reports using interference time scores that are
corrected for general slowing (Delis et al., 2001; Ivnik et al., 1996; Klein
et al., 1997; Whelihan & Lesher, 1985; West, 1999). It has been argued,
however, that generalized age-related cognitive slowing can still account for
these effects on time scores, as cognitive slowing can be exacerbated on
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 11:19 18 June 2013

more complex tasks (Uttl & Graf, 1997). An absence of an age-related

increase in interference has been reported when using path analysis or meta-
analysis as opposed to examining individual interference scores based on
measures of speed (Uttl & Graf, 1997; Verhaeghen & De Meersman, 1998).
In contrast to time scores, error scores should provide a performance mea-
sure unaffected by generalized cognitive slowing. Our findings of increased
errors with age on the VST is consistent with findings from other versions of
the Stroop (Delis et al., 2001; West, 1999; Whelihan & Lesher, 1985), and
the specific error rates are very similar to those published by Delis and
colleagues (i.e., most younger participants made one or no errors and most
older participants made two to three errors on the Inhibition condition). This
relationship between age and increased errors suggests that age-related
decrements on the Stroop task are related to cognitive processes (e.g.,
response disinhibition) other than general cognitive slowing.
There are numerous versions of the Stroop task, and, as previously
reviewed, these differ in many respects. Which version is most sensitive to
aging and to various neurological conditions is not known at present. The
VST, however, has several important strengths: (a) It demonstrates good
psychometric properties, including excellent test-retest reliability (coeffi-
cients of .90, .83, and .91 for time to complete the Dot, Neutral Word, and
Color Word tasks, respectively) and sensitivity to frontal lobe versus non-
frontal damage (reviewed in Spreen & Strauss, 1998). (b) The VST is a brief
test to administer, making it an efficient task to add to neuropsychological
test batteries. Most of our participants completed the control task within 15
seconds and the interfering task within 45 seconds. (c) Shorter test durations
may be preferable for identifying individuals who have difficulty on the
Stroop task, as greater interference effects are generally found toward the
beginning of lengthy trials (when the task is most novel) than toward the end
(Klein et al., 1997). Although a shorter duration may also decrease the
reliability of a cognitive task, the reliability of the VST has been shown to be
adequate, as discussed previously. (d) We provide normative data for a large
number of healthy adults across a wide age span, and these data are provided
 34 ANGELA K. TROYER ET AL.

for narrow age bands. (e) Interference can be examined without the contami-
nating effects of generalized slowing, by calculating ratio interference scores
and by examining error scores. Given these strengths, the VST may be par-
ticularly useful in many clinical and research applications.

REFERENCES
Anstey, K. J., Matters, B., Brown, A. K., & Lord, S. R. (2000). Normative data on neuropsy-
chological tests for very old adults living in retirement villages and hostels. The Clinical
Neuropsychologist, 14, 309–317.
Arbuckle, T. Y., & Pushkar Gold, D. (1993). Aging, inhibition, and verbosity. Journal of
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 11:19 18 June 2013

Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 48, 225–232.

Bondi, M. W., Serody, A. B., Chan, A. S., Eberson-Shumate, S. C., Delis, D. C., & Hansen,
L. A. et al. (2002). Cognitive and neuropathologic correlates of Stroop Color-Word Test
performance in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychology, 16, 335–343.
Brown, G. G., Kindermann, S. S., Siegle, G. J., Granholm, E., Wong, E. C., & Buxton, R. B.
(1999). Brain activation and pupil response during covert performance of the Stroop Color
Word task. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 5, 308–319.
Burgess, P. W., & Shallice, Y. (1997). The Hayling and Brixton Tests manual. Suffolk, UK:
Thames Valley Test Company.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation for the behavioral
sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Delis, D. C., Kaplan, E., & Kramer, J. H. (2001). Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System
technical manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Golden, C. J. (1978). Stroop color and word test: A manual for clinical and experimental
uses. Chicago, IL: Stoelting Company.
Graf, P., Uttl, B., & Tuokko, H. (1995). Color- and picture-word Stroop tests: Performance
changes in old age. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 17, 390–415.
Ivnik, R. J., Malec, J. F., Smith, G. E., Tangalos, E. R., & Petersen, R. C. (1996). Neuropsy-
chological tests’ norms above age 55: COWAT, BNT, MAE Token, WRAT-R Reading,
AMNART, Stroop, TMT, and JLO. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 10, 262–278.
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and the control of attention:
The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interfer-
ence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 47–70.
Klein, M., Ponds, R. W. H. M., Houx, P. J., & Jolles, J. (1997). Effect of test duration on age-
related differences in Stroop interference. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsy-
chology, 19, 77–82.
Mead, L. A., Mayer, A. R., Bobholz, J. A., Woodley, S. J., Cunningham, J. M., Hammeke, T. A., &
Rao, S. M. (2002). Neural basis of the Stroop interference task: Response competition or
selective attention? Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 8, 735–742.
Mitrushina, M. N., Boone, K. B., & D’Elia, L. F. (1999). Handbook of normative data for
neuropsychological assessment. London: Oxford University Press.
Moering, R. G., Schinka, J. A., Mortimer, J. A., & Graves, A. B. (2004). Normative data for
elderly African Americans for the Stroop Color and Word Test. Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychology, 19, 61–71.
 AGING AND RESPONSE INHIBITION 35

Nathan, J., Wilkinson, D., Stammers, S., & Low, J. L. (2001). The role of tests of frontal
executive function in the detection of mild dementia. International Journal of Geriatric
Psychiatry, 16, 18–26.
Perret, E. (1974). The left frontal lobe of man and the suppression of habitual responses in
verbal categorical behavior. Neuropsychologia, 12, 323–330.
Raz, N. (2000). Aging of the brain and its impact on cognitive performance: Integration of
structural and functional findings. In F. I. M. Craik & T. A. Salthouse (Eds.), The hand-
book of aging and cognition (2nd ed., pp. 1–90). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Regard, M. (1981). Cognitive rigidity and flexibility: A neuropsychological study. University
of Victoria. unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Salthouse, T. A. (1985). Speed of behavior and its implications for cognition. In J. E. Birren &
K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (2nd ed., pp. 400–426). New York:
Von Nostrand Reinhold.
Downloaded by [Syracuse University Library] at 11:19 18 June 2013

Spieler, D. H., Balota, D. A., & Faust, M. E. (1996). Stroop performance in healthy younger
and older adults and in individuals with dementia of the Alzheimer’s type. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 461–479.
Spreen, O., & Strauss, E. (1998). A compendium of neuropsychological tests (2nd ed.).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reaction. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 18, 643–662.
Stuss, D. T., Floden, D., Alexander, M. P., Levine, B., & Katz, D. (2001). Stroop perfor-
mance in focal lesion patients: Dissociation of processes and frontal lobe lesion location.
Neuropsychologia, 39, 771–786.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1983). Using multivariate statistics. New York, NY:
Harper & Row.
Trenerry, M. R., Crosson, B., DeBoe, J., & Leber, W. R. (1989). Stroop Neuropsychological
Screening Test. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Uttl, B., & Graf, P. (1997). Color-Word Stroop Test performance across the adult life span.
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 19, 405–420.
Vakil, E., Weisz, H., Jedwab, L., Groswasser, Z., & Aberbuch, S. (1995). Stroop color-word
task as a measure of selective attention: Efficiency in closed-head-injured patients.
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 17, 335–342.
Vendrell, P., Junqué, C., Pujol, J., Jurado, M. A., Molet, J., & Grafman, J. (1995). The role of
prefrontal regions in the Stroop task. Neuropsychologia, 33, 341–352.
Verhaeghen, P., & De Meersman, L. (1998). Aging and the Stroop effect: A meta-analysis.
Psychology and Aging, 13, 120–126.
West, R. (1999). Age differences in lapses of intention in the Stroop task. Journals of Geron-
tology, 54B, P34–P43.
Whelihan, W. M., & Lesher, E. L. (1985). Neuropsychological changes in frontal functions
with aging. Developmental Neuropsychology, 1, 371–380.